PHILO CD 7.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner

Vs
HON. TIRSO D.C. VELASCO in his capacity as the Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 88, Quezon
City and HONORATO GALVEZ, respondents.

FACTS:
In October 8, 1996. Honorato Galvez was acquitted in the murder of Alex Vinculado,
double frustrated murder charges for Levi Vinculado and Miguel Vinculado Jr. and
possession of an illegal firearm. However, Galvez’ co-accused, Godofredo Diego, was
convicted of the same charges.

The acquittal of the accused Honorato Galvez is nopw vigoriously challenged by the
Government before this Court in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court and Sec. 1 Art. VIII of the Constitution. It is the submission of the petitioner
that the exculpation of the accused Galvez from all criminal responsibility by
respondent Judge Tirso Velasco constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE:
Does petioning for a certiorari violate the “double jeopardy” clause on final
acquittals?

RULING:
Yes, as mandated by our Constitution, statutes and cognate jurisprudence, an
acquittal is final and unappealabe on the ground of double jeopardy, whether it
happens at the trial court level or before the Court of Appeals.

The Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure relative to double jeopardy and the effect
therein of acquittals edhere strictly to constitutional provisions. The Pertinent
portions of sec. 7 of Rule 117 thereof provide –

SECTION 7. Former conviction or acquittal;double jeopardy.

- When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him
dismissed or otherwise by a court of terminated without his express consent
by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or
other charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and
after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of
the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution
for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
From this procedural prescription alone, thre can be no mistaking the requisites for
invoking double jeopardy. In the case at bar, the accused was already acquitted thus
it is constitutionally guaranteed right against being twice placed in jeopardy, thus,
the finality-of-acquittal rule applies.